Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio‐Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.

Multiple Indonesian cities currently aim to qualify as ‘smart cities’. Previous research on defining smart cities (e.g., the implementation-oriented Maturity Model) tends to focus on components over interrelationships, is challenging to apply to a specific context such as Indonesia, and offers limited support for policy-relevant questions. In this paper, we propose to address these shortcomings to support policymakers in identifying concrete action plans in Indonesia specifically. Our approach clarifies interrelationships for the context of use, and supports structural (e.g., what aspects of a ‘smart city’ are impacted by an intervention?) as well as what-if policy questions. We started with a systems science approach to develop a cognitive map of the components and their interrelationships, as is increasingly done in participatory modeling and particularly in socio-ecological management. We transformed semi-structured interviews of 10 Indonesian experts into maps and assembled them to create the first comprehensive smart cities cognitive map for Indonesia, totaling 52 concepts and 98 relationships. While a cognitive map already provides support for decision-making (e.g., by identifying loops in the system), it is only conceptual and thus cannot form predictions. Consequently, we extended our cognitive map into a Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM), whose inference abilities allow to examine the dynamic response of an indicator (e.g., ‘smart city’) in response to different interventions. As Fuzzy Cognitive Maps include the strengths of interrelationships but not the notion of time, future research may refine our model using System Dynamics. This refinement would support policymakers in investigating when to conduct and/or evaluate an intervention.

Background: In 2020, COVID-19 has claimed more than 300,000 deaths in the United States alone. Although nonpharmaceutical interventions were implemented by federal and state governments in the United States, these efforts have failed to contain the virus. Following the Food and Drug Administration's approval of two COVID-19 vaccines, however, the hope for the return to normalcy has been renewed. This hope rests on an unprecedented nationwide vaccine campaign, which faces many logistical challenges and is also contingent on several factors whose values are currently unknown.Objective: We study the effectiveness of a nationwide vaccine campaign in response to different vaccine efficacies, the willingness of the population to be vaccinated, and the daily vaccine capacity under two different federal plans. To characterize the possible outcomes most accurately, we also account for the interactions between nonpharmaceutical interventions and vaccines through 6 scenarios that capture a range of possible impacts from nonpharmaceutical interventions.Methods: We used large-scale, cloud-based, agent-based simulations by implementing the vaccination campaign using COVASIM, an open-source agent-based model for COVID-19 that has been used in several peer-reviewed studies and accounts for individual heterogeneity and a multiplicity of contact networks. Several modifications to the parameters and simulation logic were made to better align the model with current evidence. We chose 6 nonpharmaceutical intervention scenarios and applied the vaccination intervention following both the plan proposed by Operation Warp Speed (former Trump administration) and the plan of one million vaccines per day, proposed by the Biden administration. We accounted for unknowns in vaccine efficacies and levels of population compliance by varying both parameters. For each experiment, the cumulative infection growth was fitted to a logistic growth model, and the carrying capacities and the growth rates were recorded.Results: For both vaccination plans and all nonpharmaceutical intervention scenarios, the presence of the vaccine intervention considerably lowers the total number of infections when life returns to normal, even when the population compliance to vaccines is as low as 20%. We noted an unintended consequence; given the vaccine availability estimates under both federal plans and the focus on vaccinating individuals by age categories, a significant reduction in nonpharmaceutical interventions results in a counterintuitive situation in which higher vaccine compliance then leads to more total infections.Conclusions: Although potent, vaccines alone cannot effectively end the pandemic given the current availability estimates and the adopted vaccination strategy. Nonpharmaceutical interventions need to continue and be enforced to ensure high compliance so that the rate of immunity established by vaccination outpaces that induced by infections.

Systems thinking (ST) skills are often the foundation of sustainability science curricula. Though ST skill sets are used as a basic approach to reasoning about complex environmental problems, there are gaps in our understanding regarding the best ways to promote and assess ST learning in classrooms. Since ST learning provides Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students’ important skills and awareness to participate in environmental problem-solving, addressing these gaps is an important STEM learning contribution. We have created guidelines for teaching and measuring ST skills derived from a hybrid of a literature review and through case study data collection. Our approach is based on semi-quantitative cognitive mapping techniques meant to support deep reasoning about the complexities of social–ecological issues. We begin by arguing that ST should be evaluated on a continuum of understanding rather than a binary of correct/incorrect or present/absent. We then suggest four fundamental dimensions of teaching and evaluating ST which include: (1) system structure, (2) system function, (3) identification of leverage points for change, and (4) trade-off analysis. Finally, we use a case study to show how these ideas can be assessed through cognitive maps to help students develop deep system understanding and the capacity to propose innovative solutions to sustainability problems.